Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay
Order Date: 31 August 2026
Case Overview
- Petitioner: Jyoti Kiran Kalyankar; Respondents: Bank of Maharashtra and another party.
- The petition directly challenged an order dated 15 April 2026 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Pune, which disposed of an interim application filed in a pending securitisation proceeding by issuing specific directions.
- The petitioner argued that the DRT had mis‑interpreted a circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and sought relief through a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution.
- The Court observed that an alternative efficacious statutory remedy exists: an appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) under the SARFAESI Act / Securitisation Act.
- Citing Supreme Court precedents (United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon, 2010 and Celir LLP vs. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd., 2024), the Court reiterated that High Courts should not entertain writ petitions when a specific statutory appeal route is available.
Final Outcome
- The writ petition is dismissed.
- The petitioner is at liberty to exhaust the statutory remedy by filing an appeal before the DRAT; the Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the underlying dispute.
- All rights and contentions of the parties remain open.
Topics: Debt Recovery, SARFAESI Act, Securitisation